Are there real Shaolin Monks?

[Miqi]

Since when does this topic have anything to do with my skill level? Talk about ad hominem. That's always the route people take when they have no logical basis for their argument, knowing most people aren't going to have or be willing to put videos of themselves on the internet, which is totally a personal choice and right that has no consequence on the actual merit of their argument, which in my case you are unwilling to address directly. Go figure.

Dear LFJ,
I think you're confusing two issues. I was interested in you, as a martial artist, hence asking if you had videos. But for Shaolin monks, as I stated explicitly, I noted that there were hundreds of videos of them, and I was simply asking you if, out of all of those, there were any that demonstrated what you were talking about. Not you, them.

Instead of providing those, you smeared the people who asked you for them. And now you've smeared them again, by accusing them of the very thing that you actually did - making the argument about them. Go figure on that.

[Miqi]

I didn't imply anything about magic powers or fighting skills. In fact I wasn’t implying anything other than exactly what I said. I'll repeat it, and explain it slowly, since you seem hell-bent on ascribing views to people they never expressed.

Rewind. You told someone to go to Randi to collect the reward, because they cited a study claiming mental manipulation of electric currents in the body by qigong practitioners.

I said, that isn't anything Randi would pay out cash for. I meant it's not paranormal (nor is making a current flow any sort of superpower or fighting skill, except perhaps for an electric eel 80% of whose body is a chemical battery).

Scientists have already developed sensors that can be deliberately controlled by thinking. These have potential uses for helping paralyzed people use computers. So controlling bioelectricity with the mind already exists and is recognized. It's science, it's natural, and it's nothing Randi pays for.

At that point you did your straw man trick, claiming I was talking about super fighting powers or paranormal skills.

The only superpowers I'm interested in are the ones I listed upthread: Using the superpower of compassion to overcome cruelty, courage to overpower fear, knowledge to overcome delusion, etc. Randi doesn't pay out for those either.

And even if it should turn out that paranormal powers like telepathy actually do exist, I wouldn't consider them truly paranormal or supernatural. Anything that really exists is, to me, part of nature and subject to causality, even if we don't understand it. (And once again, please note: I didn't claim telepathy exists)

Just wondering.... out of interest...

Assuming that the study finds that qi gong causes the changes you mentioned, in the study, do the researchers use a control group of any kind. For example, people who simply use movements that they make up, or people who perform other practices. Without that (if they didn't) it wouldn't be very scientific, because what was ascribed to "qi gong" might actually just be perfectly normal brain activity caused by focussed movement. Playing football might have the same effect.

[LFJ]

Dear LFJ,
I think you're confusing two issues. I was interested in you, as a martial artist, hence asking if you had videos. But for Shaolin monks, as I stated explicitly, I noted that there were hundreds of videos of them, and I was simply asking you if, out of all of those, there were any that demonstrated what you were talking about. Not you, them.

Instead of providing those, you smeared the people who asked you for them. And now you've smeared them again, by accusing them of the very thing that you actually did - making the argument about them. Go figure on that.

You seem to have forgotten what you actually asked for:

Anyway, there's always an end point to these discussions - usually when one person simply cannot get past the problem of having no evidence whatsoever to back up what they've said.

That doesn't mean it's not true, of course. I don't know everything that there is. I'd be quite interested in seeing your forms level, though - do you have any videos of you doing forms? That will tell me a great deal more about where you're coming from.

You asked for videos of me so that you could judge my personal skill level in order to determine my qualification in the argument (ad hominem), rather than addressing the points that were being made. Undoubtedly you'd be looking for anything you could call a flaw so as to discredit my entire point, which you had no other way of addressing.

But like I said, when one has no logical basis for their argument, that's when ad hominem demands for video evidence of the other person's skill come out, because they think it makes them look like the tough guy when the other "cannot get past the problem of having no evidence whatsoever".

[Miqi]

You seem to have forgotten what you actually asked for:



You asked for videos of me so that you could judge my personal skill level in order to determine my qualification in the argument (ad hominem), rather than addressing the points that were being made. Undoubtedly you'd be looking for anything you could call a flaw so as to discredit my entire point, which you had no other way of addressing.

But like I said, when one has no logical basis for their argument, that's when ad hominem demands for video evidence of the other person's skill come out, because they think it makes them look like the tough guy when the other "cannot get past the problem of having no evidence whatsoever".

Dear LFJ,
I was just interested in your wushu, as (unless I'm confusing you with someone else) you mentioned that you were from a Songhsan school. It is true, though, for example as in the case of Hendrick, that at times, when someone reveals what they really do, they discredit themselves so totally that anything they say, true or otherwise, has ti be dismissed as suspect. I'm sure that's not the case with you, as you haven't made any obnoxious or unlikely claims. I always like to see people's wushu if possible, just out of interest.

However, you are quite right - your wushu is of no relevance to the issue under discussion. So, unless you want go on about it - which you will do by yourself - let me re-iterate that I am simply asking you to provide videos in which the training methods, shen fa etc. which you discussed are visible; not out of any sense of being awkward, but simply because that would make the discussion a lot easier, as we'd all know precisely what we were talking about.

[Miqi]

You asked for videos of me so that you could judge my personal skill level in order to determine my qualification in the argument

Yes, that's true. I'm not sure that that's entirely a bad thing - but yes, that's true. I did, and I have.

[LFJ]

I am simply asking you to provide videos in which the training methods, shen fa etc. which you discussed are visible; not out of any sense of being awkward, but simply because that would make the discussion a lot easier, as we'd all know precisely what we were talking about.

Well, the issue here now is that we need to know what we are basing our judgements for 'good execution' on.

Someone may be able to take a Shaolin form and perform it in a way that shows great power, speed, agility, etc. and is impressive to all who watch, but at the same time they may have completely altered the shenfa to make it more aesthetically pleasing and athletically impressive.

Someone else may then take the same form and perform it with the traditional shenfa which shows an understanding of the combat applications, concepts and principles of the style (which only those familiar with it would recognize) while quite possibly making it less aesthetically pleasing and athletically impressive.

From one point of view, the first is the more outstanding performance. From a more practical point of view, it is entirely useless while the second is considered good execution. So it depends, which point of view do you take?

What is your opinion of this performance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06fJXJ30_rU

[LFJ]

You asked for videos of me so that you could judge my personal skill level in order to determine my qualification in the argument

Yes, that's true. I'm not sure that that's entirely a bad thing - but yes, that's true. I did, and I have.

To borrow Scott's favorite example: Do you realize Béla Károlyi, the preeminent girls olympic gymnastic coach, has never performed on any of the girls apparatuses and yet he is able to coach many girls to multiple olympic gold medals and yet he cannot do it himself and never has?!

Would you tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about and is not qualified to discuss gymnastics training because he can't do a double back somersault with a half twist off of a 4" wide beam 4' off the ground??

No, I'm not comparing myself to anyone's greatness. Just illustrating why this is an ad hominem fallacy, even if there are cases like Hendrik... One's level of personal skill has no consequence on the merit of their argument.

[Kellen Bassette]

The only superpowers I'm interested in are the ones I listed upthread: Using the superpower of compassion to overcome cruelty, courage to overpower fear, knowledge to overcome delusion, etc. Randi doesn't pay out for those either.

You've had the power all along!

[Pk_StyLeZ]

What is your opinion of this performance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06fJXJ30_rU

my view on this performance, man its awesome! but I know what you thinking, so I wont answer and let the original person you asked answer it =)

To borrow Scott's favorite example: Do you realize Béla Károlyi, the preeminent girls olympic gymnastic coach, has never performed on any of the girls apparatuses and yet he is able to coach many girls to multiple olympic gold medals and yet he cannot do it himself and never has?!

Would you tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about and is not qualified to discuss gymnastics training because he can't do a double back somersault with a half twist off of a 4" wide beam 4' off the ground??

No, I'm not comparing myself to anyone's greatness. Just illustrating why this is an ad hominem fallacy, even if there are cases like Hendrik... One's level of personal skill has no consequence on the merit of their argument.

exactly, I think like this too. a lot of people think I am not qualified to teach backflip, because I cannot perform one my self...
look at most of the NFL coaches, they all fat and etc. but yet they are still the best coach in the league...
LFJ u are a smart person!

[rett]

You've had the power all along!

Ha ha, awesome. They line up.

[Miqi]

To borrow Scott's favorite example: Do you realize Béla Károlyi, the preeminent girls olympic gymnastic coach, has never performed on any of the girls apparatuses and yet he is able to coach many girls to multiple olympic gold medals and yet he cannot do it himself and never has?!

Would you tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about and is not qualified to discuss gymnastics training because he can't do a double back somersault with a half twist off of a 4" wide beam 4' off the ground??

No, I'm not comparing myself to anyone's greatness. Just illustrating why this is an ad hominem fallacy, even if there are cases like Hendrik... One's level of personal skill has no consequence on the merit of their argument.

To answer this first. This is very much an argument I also often make. The question would then be to what degree you've presented yourself as an expert witness - Im thinking particulalrly that you arued, or strongly implied, that you trained at Songshan and your personal experience of the monks was the basis of what you were proposing as evidence.

It's only ad hominem if the argument attacks the person, and not the argument - but the testimony of an expert witness is part of the argument, and it's not unreasonable to assess that person's competence.

In the case of the coach you mentioned (I would have used Wu Bin myself), there probably were doubts about them, until they disproved those doubts with practical results. So again, you haven't shown any practical results in your own right, so it's a false analogy.

Anyway - it's healthier just to focus on actual footage, so let's do that.

[Miqi]

What is your opinion of this performance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06fJXJ30_rU

It's a very good performance of a traditional boxing form. I would never criticise something like this - I love traditional wushu. Technically speaking, I would put aside any argument about "fight applicability" - because it's almost impossible to determine that from a forms performance, beyond strength, fitness, speed etc.

I would say that, to me this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biZ5z7htOY0

is quite similar - similar body language, postures, strength, speed etc. But where this nan quan guy is disimilar, he is better - for example complexity, speed - and particularly the way keeps control of the form, the stances, the body language, even at high speed. It's much tighter, more controlled, paced, and his actual physical posture is superior. So they are closely related on the same continuum, but the latter is superior.

But both unquestionably much, much further along thanf 99.9% of the stuff of the people in the west are pretending is good level, real CMA forms.

Our problem, though, is in establishing whether the Shaolin student's performance represents something "better" because it has something more "fighty" about it. Both these guys probably train san da as tertiary subjects.

[Miqi]

I should also add that there isn't always a clear distinction between Shaolin and contemporary wushu - I'd bet good money the young Shaolin guy knows quite a lot of the contemporary syllabus.

[LFJ]

This is very much an argument I also often make. The question would then be to what degree you've presented yourself as an expert witness - Im thinking particulalrly that you arued, or strongly implied, that you trained at Songshan and your personal experience of the monks was the basis of what you were proposing as evidence.

It's only ad hominem if the argument attacks the person, and not the argument - but the testimony of an expert witness is part of the argument, and it's not unreasonable to assess that person's competence.

Actually, I only mentioned my experience- where I trained and whom with - when you asked for it. It had nothing to do with my argument on fighting strategy and the differences between sanda and unplanned violent encounters outside of the sport environment.

Your motive, as it turned out, was to look up videos of my instructor and say he is not as good as any random pro sport wushu guy you find, and what? Therefore my argument on fighting strategy is invalid because you think sport wushu guys dance better than my instructor? You simply wouldn't address the actual points I made, except ironically to concede them.

[LFJ]

I would say that, to me this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biZ5z7htOY0

is quite similar - similar body language, postures, strength, speed etc. But where this nan quan guy is disimilar, he is better - for example complexity, speed - and particularly the way keeps control of the form, the stances, the body language, even at high speed. It's much tighter, more controlled, paced, and his actual physical posture is superior. So they are closely related on the same continuum, but the latter is superior.

First of all, I don't know how these two can even be compared. The "nanquan" guy didn't hardly do a thing that resembled martial arts, much less a practical one. He should be compared to a figure skater, since he did mostly axel jumps and salchows, plus some dance poses.

Why is "complexity" included in your comparison? The Shaolin form was not made up by him, and complexity is not a virtue in martial arts. The more complex the less practical in most cases.

You say he is better at controlling the form at high speed, better paced, and has superior physical posture?

What is your basis for judging that? Where in the Shaolin form was it not well-controlled or what postures were not executed as well? I've never seen anyone do this form better, and the pace was as it should be. It's not a zixuan taolu.

Our problem, though, is in establishing whether the Shaolin student's performance represents something "better" because it has something more "fighty" about it.

That's your problem perhaps. My argument has always been that they are two completely different things with different purposes and different standards for good execution, and can't be compared this way to say which is "better". I think that is a silly thing to do. Both are top notch for what they are, but I wouldn't compare a figure skater to a martial artists and say the martial artist isn't as good as the figure skater.